Saturday, May 31, 2014

Just when it appears the Obama administration can’t move without revealing another scandal, various news agencies are reporting that a Justice Department program dubbed “Operation Choke Point” is now under scrutiny, and yesterday, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF)
revealed that it “has been investigating the possible role of the
federal government in influencing banks in their lending and business
banking relationship decisions regarding companies” in the firearms
industry.

In a statement released yesterday, NSSF said it is “is
unacceptable…to discriminate against businesses simply because they are
engaged in the lawful commerce of firearms, an activity protected by the
Second Amendment.” That came as the Wall Street Journal was
reporting that Capitol Hill Republicans were alleging that “the
government has pressured banks to stop handling payments for merchants
deemed as high risk—including gun dealers, short-term lenders and
credit-repair programs—punishing good actors along with bad ones.”

A well written essay that cuts to the heart of the Second Amendment. Armed people are more powerful than unarmed people.

For millions of Americans the Second Amendment and its guarantee of the right of the individual to bear arms appears irrelevant and practically anachronistic. It seems a throwback to those earlier days of the Wild West, when many men, far from the law and order provided by the town sheriff and circuit judge, had to protect their families and land from cattle rustlers and outlaw bands. Such people are wrong.

To write like this in good conscience, one has to believe two things:
1) That the gun-control measures mentioned would inevitably lower the
gun-crime rate, and 2) That most people think this to be the case but
don’t care. Is there any evidence for this?

Certainly, Americans
do not want to tighten up the laws. Gallup shows us that most people are
either satisfied with the status quo or want the rules loosened:

On May 16th the Missouri legislature passed a bill containing a number of gun law reforms. The reforms were all passed as part of a bill that does not contain any provision for nullification of federal gun laws. LMTD at opencarry.org has this to say about the possibility of Democrat Governor Nixon signing the bill:

Since this is the same as last year less nullification and nullification
was his objection he is in a rock and hard place, I am wondering if he
won't just ignore and let it expire and move along. Seems a veto might
be bad timing for him but you never know.

Allows for a demonstration of proficiency with either a revolver or semi-automatic handgun instead of both for the carry permit

Uniform open carry law throughout the state with a concealed carry permit

Changes the age of eligibility for the carry permit from 21 to 19

One of the reforms of the law is to prevent police officers from "chilling" the right to bear arms. Plumberdan at opencarry.org relates this anecdote:

encounter with local leo in st. Louis muni..officer says he always disarms ccw people so he

can run serial number...what's with that..I informed him with new bill in legislation that would be

an unlawfull act to disarm with out making arrest merely for snooping purpose of valid ccw carriers,

and could lead to lawsuit against officer with out his being able to hide behind immunity....

This is a classic case of police using their authority to chill the exercise of a constitutional right. Consider if the police would routinely take your cell phone to "check the serial number to see if it was stolen". Many more people would not be talking on cell phones in public or would keep them hidden while walking about.

SB656 passed the House 118 to 28 and the Senate 21 to 8. Both houses passed the bill with the necessary 2/3 required to override a veto.

Governor Nixon has until the middle of July to sign the bill, veto the bill or allow the bill to become law by doing nothing. He vetoed a similar bill last year that had nullification as part of it.

Edward Peruta, became famous because of the lawsuit that bears his name. The Ninth Circuit decision brought "Shall Issue" concealed carry permits to California, Hawaii, and the territory of Guam, though the issue is still being challenged in the courts.

He has endorsed the son of a Marine sargent that he knew in combat for the State Senate. In this Youtube video, Edward Peruta talks to Hawaii state senate candidate Joe Kamaka.

The elder Kamaka was Edward Peruta's sargent in Vietnam, who Peruta credits with saving his life. From opencarry.org:

To the voters of Maui,I recently had a conversation with Hawaii candidate Joseph Kamaka, who is running for a seat in the Hawaii State Senate.Here is a link to the conversation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tt6...CCATyM2hATf1egMy connection to Joe and his family is through his father Joseph Mamoa Kamaka who I knew in combat.I thought I would share my conversation and ask the voters on Maui to support him this November.Attorney Rachel Baird and I began a live cable access program called Summary Judgment which is also streamed live in real time on the internet at: http://www.wctv14.com/live.html.You can also see previous shows at www.sjtalkshow.com.I will be following his run for the Hawaii Senate Mahalo and stay safe,Edward A. Peruta

While endorsements from organizations that support the Second Amendment are common, it is unusual to find one from an ordinary citizen that gained his fame from a lawsuit to enforce second amendment rights.

No matter how many infringements those who favor an all powerful state create to disarm citizens, the next law is always a "good first step". David Codrea shows this deception for what it is in this excellent article:

The firestorm of hatred directed at gun owners following an evil
misfit’s stabbing/shooting/car ramming spree in Isla Vista confirms this column’s observation that no amount of “gun control,” short of a total ban, will ever be enough for citizen disarmament proponents.

“You say gun control doesn't work? Fine. Let's ban guns altogether,” Scott Martelle wrote yesterday in an opinion piece for The Los Angeles Times.
“Hunters could own shotguns (and rifles where state laws allow them
for hunting), but they would have to be registered and the owners would
have to pass a gun safety course before they could get a hunting
license,” Martelle generously offers. “Ammunition sales would be tracked
much like we do sales of pseudoephinedrine (an ingredient in meth).”

“As for handguns, assault-style weapons, etc., let’s have a flat-out
ban,” he idiotically proposes (it's pretty funny that his Twitter handle
is "Smartelle").
The rationale he goes into is hardly important. He’s told us what he
and those behind the “common sense gun safety laws / nobody wants to
take your guns, you paranoid nuts”
lie really want. Of course they want to take them. Martelle just told
us. And anyone paying attention knows the Fourth Estate Fifth Columnists
at The Times have been after them for years.

CeaseFire President Ralph Fascitelli stated that, “I don’t know of
anything…that could have been done to prevent this tragedy in Santa
Barbara.” It is an admission that could come back to haunt him and the
gun prohibition lobby later this year as the Washington Alliance for Gun
Responsibility pushes Initiative 594, the 18-page gun control measure with a so-called “universal background check” at its core.

Fascitelli said he also wants Washington’s “shall issue” concealed
carry law to revert to a “may issue” scenario with family interviews
before a carry license is issued. He also asserted that the reason
people visit gun shows is so they can purchase firearms without
background checks.

INDIAN LAND — No charges will
be filed in the shooting death of David Hammer, 21, of Fort Mill,
because the man who fired the shot feared he would be seriously harmed,
according a news release from the Lancaster County Sheriff’s Office.

Hammer
was shot March 22 in the driveway of a home on Fort Mill Highway. The
county coroner’s office confirmed at the time that Hammer died from
single gunshot wound to the chest.

“At that point, (the sailor) was in fear that he was going to be
struck in the head or neck with a large glass bottle,” Lee wrote. “It
also appears he was concerned about what might happen to (the woman) if
he left her alone with (her ex-boyfriend.)”

When the sailor drew his handgun, the other man said he didn’t care about the gun, and didn’t back away or leave the residence.

“At this point (the sailor), fired a single round
in to (the ex-boyfriends) abdomen and then called 9-1-1 to report the
situation,” according to the letter.

Friday, May 30, 2014

Currently before the Ninth Circuit is an appeal in the case of Fyock v. Sunnyvale,
a case which challenges a California’s city’s ban on magazines which
hold more than 10 rounds. While the State of California outlaws the
sale, import, or transfer of such magazines, the Sunnyvale ban goes
further, by prohibiting possession of these magazines, with no provision
for grandfathering. The District Court upheld the ban; part of the
Court’s analysis stated that magazines did not exist at the time the
Second Amendment was ratified. Last Friday, amicus briefs in support of
appellant were filed, including a brief which I co-authored on the history of magazines and of magazine prohibition.

The longest section of brief provides the history of magazines, with a
particular focus on magazines holding more than 10 rounds. The first
such magazine was invented in the late 16th century. Over the next two
centuries, many inventors created guns with magazines holding more than
10 rounds. The consumer demand for such magazines is easy to understand:
when a gun is out of ammunition, the user is in effect disarmed, and
does not possess an operable firearm until the gun is reloaded. As Heller teaches, the Second Amendment protects the right to an operable firearm.

By the time of the Second Amendment, the state of the art for
multishot guns was the Girandoni air rifle, with a 20 or 22 round
magazine. Ballistically, it was superior to the powder guns of its time,
and had been created for elite marksmen in the Austrian army. Lewis
& Clark carried a Girandoni on their famous expedition.

By 1791, much progress had been made in firearms design and it was
easy to foresee that future progress would include improvements in
multishot guns. However, as of 1791, the very large majority of American
firearms were single-shot, likely because of the expense of multishot
guns, and also perhaps because of concerns about reliability. The first
half of the 19th century saw the first widespread commercial success of
multi-shot guns–namely the revolvers from companies such as Colt’s and
Smith & Wesson, as well as multi-barrel handguns called
“pepperboxes.” There were some pepperboxes which could fire more than 10
rounds, but most pepperboxes held 8 or less.

A New York television station’s news programming has dropped all
pretenses of unbiased reporting and relegated itself to being a purveyor
of anti-gun propaganda.

“PIX11 is taking a stand against gun violence,” the station announced
in a commercial promoting its involvement “teaming up with local
leaders and the families of victims to make June gun violence awareness
month.”

“PIX11, where every story hits home. Some more powerful than others,”
the voiceover announcer intones on a commercial that begins with the
assertion, presented as a given, that there are “too many guns.” Their
intent here could not be clearer: Get rid of guns.

“A special thank you to WPIX, who have said that they will cover the
things that are being done in communities,” New York City Council member
Jumaane D. Williams said at a ceremony on the steps of New York City
Hall. Williams, to put things in perspective, is someone who thinks New
York’s draconian anti-gun edicts are merely “a good first start.”

The decision is but one in a string of decisions that are slowly sticking the needle into laws
nationwide barring the recording of police as they perform their
duties. But some states, like Massachusetts, outlaw the secret audio
recording of police. A woman accused of secretly turning on the audio
recording feature of her mobile phone while she was being arrested was charged with wiretapping two weeks ago in Massachusetts.

Sergeant Raymond Bush of the Fort Worth Police Department in Texas told the Examiner Monday that statements regarding employees locking themselves in a freezer at a Jack in the Box establishment in Texas were "taken out of context."

The story, first reported at a local NBC affiliate, written by Ken Kalthoff, created a media firestorm and was used by Bloomberg's "Moms Demand Action"
gun control group to pressure Jack in the Box and Home Depot (where
members of Open Carry Texas were demonstrating) to disallow open carry
demonstrations on their premises.

The original news story reported that employees "were scared about
the armed men protesting outside of the restaurant." Kalthoff cited an
email from Sgt. Bush that quotes him as saying, “They locked themselves
inside a freezer for protection out of fear the rifle-carrying men would
rob them...” Moms Demand Action started an aggressive social media
campaign, releasing a statement
that said in part that the companies are subjecting customers “in
search of building parts or burgers, to the potential for bullets.”

A poll in a Michigan newspaper is asking the following question: Should concealed pistol permit holders carry guns into schools?

The responses allowed are:

Yes

No

Don't know

Don't care

So far the results are overwhelmingly in favor of allowing permit holders to carry in schools:

Yes 79.36% (1488 votes)

No 19.95% (374 votes)

Don't Know .32% (6 votes)

Don't Care .37% (7 votes)

This is typical of online polls involving Second Amendment supporters. It measures the ratio of those who are interested enough to answer an online poll. The results fit comfortably in the range expected, with Second Amendment supporters outnumbering those who push for more restrictions by 3-10 to 1. In this case it is a comfortable 4-1 ratio. What is interesting in this poll is that it includes the potentialy emotional trigger of guns in schools. Those who want more restrictions on guns have attempted to set up a taboo: no guns in schools. In fact guns have been commonly associated with schools up until the Bush and Clinton gun bans in and around schools in the 1990's. Even with the emotional trigger in place, we still get a 4-1 ratio in favor of second amendment supporters.

...and finally the governor signed Bill 296 into law. The bill changes
language for concealed firearms licensing from "may" to shall." that
means concealed firearm licenses shall be issued to an applicant who
meets the various specifications.

Notice of renewal requirement will be mailed out 90 days before expiration

Guam now joins the 41 states that have laws that require the issuance of a permit if the legal requirements are met. California and Hawaii have been required to convert to a "shall issue" status pending the resolution of the Peruta decision. Vermont does not require the issuance of a permit, and does not issue one. Only six states now fall into the category where the issuing authority may arbitrarily refuse to issue a permit. Those states are New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Delaware.

Three of those states, Maryland, New Jersey, and New York, have no state constitutional provision protecting the right to keep and bear arms.

I am glad to see that someone at the National Park Service is watching
Gun Watch. This was in the morning, perhaps before work. Our mission
is to inform people about events that the old media is not much
interested in. I am gratified that civil servants in the NPS are interested.

At 14 minutes worth of viewing they had time to gain some useful knowledge.
The location is listed as the Denver, perhaps they will relate what they learned to the current situation in Colorado.

The more people are informed of the facts, the better. The first page looked at was the article dealing with the absurd convictions that have occurred under current gun control laws. After two page views, the person
exited Gun Watch.

It is nice to see that someone in the National Park Service is keeping informed.

Thursday, May 29, 2014

California Bill AB-1609 has already passed the Assembly. It prohibits Californians from obtaining firearms in other states unless they are transferred through a federal firearms dealer. In this it essentially duplicates existing federal law. There are exceptions for licensed manufacturers and estates. The law is not easy to read, because it refers to dozens of existing California statutes. California firearms law is already a complex maze that can take considerable study to understand.

One major change in the law that is significantly different from Federal law is this section:

(g) As used in Sections 29010 to 29150, inclusive, “firearm” includes
the unfinished frame or receiver of a weapon that can be readily
converted to the functional condition of a finished frame or receiver.

It seems that this bill would outlaw people making their own firearms. It has never been illegal to make firearms for your own use that are not contraband. California has been transforming into a state where "everything that is not allowed is forbidden", instead of the default American standard of "everything that is not forbidden is allowed".

This bill would move California another step down the path of
prohibiting legal possession of firearms except for those that are
subject to immediate confiscation by the state. California has been
expanding the definitions of those who are prohibited from legally
possessing firearms and has appropriated considerable funds to special
teams to go around the state confiscating firearms when a person becomes
a prohibited possessor. Last year, California passed a law requiring the registration of any long guns that are purchased.

A Kentucky lady dropped a long contact comment essentially asking why so many parents blame the weapon instead of their child.

I have had several long discussions with professionals and the answer
I get is that externalization; transferring blame from the perpetrator
to the the instrument; make grief easier to bear. It is much easier to
rave and rage and make someone else the “real cause” instead of looking
the world in the face and blaming your child.

I suspect that TV only increases violence if you start with a peaceful society. Most pre-industrial societies were very violent.

I stopped counting the peer reviewed and published studies linking
small screen violence a decade ago, when the total reached 4,000. Except
for denials by industry figures, and a Network funded “study” at
notorious study mill, there has been no attempt to refute what has
advanced from hypothesis to settled science. Interpersonal violence on
the small screen makes us more violent.

It is easy to see why television violence might have long lasting
effects. Very young children are “rasa tabulae,” blank tablets, ready
for the experiences of life to mold them into whatever they may become.
Many of those innocents regard the “glass teat” as an extension of
reality. And what they learn is “Violence is a success strategy.”

I
keep hearing people say they want to regulate guns the way we regulate
cars. They don't really mean that, of course. What they mean is they
want to make it acceptable to find more ways to intrude on the right to
keep and bear arms.
I propose instead, we regulate cars the way we regulate guns. Let's start:
- See more at:
http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/blog/item/we-need-to-regulate-cars-the-way-we-regulate-guns#sthash.2msuptFF.dpuf

I
keep hearing people say they want to regulate guns the way we regulate
cars. They don't really mean that, of course. What they mean is they
want to make it acceptable to find more ways to intrude on the right to
keep and bear arms.
I propose instead, we regulate cars the way we regulate guns. Let's start:
- See more at:
http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/blog/item/we-need-to-regulate-cars-the-way-we-regulate-guns#sthash.2msuptFF.dpuf

I
keep hearing people say they want to regulate guns the way we regulate
cars. They don't really mean that, of course. What they mean is they
want to make it acceptable to find more ways to intrude on the right to
keep and bear arms.
I propose instead, we regulate cars the way we regulate guns. Let's start:
To buy or operate a standard car, one will have to be 18 years old.
Under that age, adult supervision will be mandatory. This means the
adult must be in the vehicle with the underage driver.
To buy a sports car, you will have to be 21. A "Sports car" will be
defined as any combination of any two of the following: 2 doors instead
of 4, spoked rims not requiring hubcaps, aerodynamic effects such as
spoilers or air dams, a wheelbase under 100 inches, a manual
transmission, a curb weight under 3000 lbs, fiberglass or other
non-metal construction, or painted logos.
For every purchase, you will have to fill out a questionnaire
confirming you're a US citizen, do not use drugs or abuse alcohol, have
never had a conviction for alcohol related incidents or reckless
driving. Lying on this form will be punishable by 10 years in prison
and/or a $10,000 fine.
- See more at:
http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/blog/item/we-need-to-regulate-cars-the-way-we-regulate-guns#sthash.2msuptFF.dpuf

I
keep hearing people say they want to regulate guns the way we regulate
cars. They don't really mean that, of course. What they mean is they
want to make it acceptable to find more ways to intrude on the right to
keep and bear arms.
I propose instead, we regulate cars the way we regulate guns. Let's start:
To buy or operate a standard car, one will have to be 18 years old.
Under that age, adult supervision will be mandatory. This means the
adult must be in the vehicle with the underage driver.
To buy a sports car, you will have to be 21. A "Sports car" will be
defined as any combination of any two of the following: 2 doors instead
of 4, spoked rims not requiring hubcaps, aerodynamic effects such as
spoilers or air dams, a wheelbase under 100 inches, a manual
transmission, a curb weight under 3000 lbs, fiberglass or other
non-metal construction, or painted logos.
For every purchase, you will have to fill out a questionnaire
confirming you're a US citizen, do not use drugs or abuse alcohol, have
never had a conviction for alcohol related incidents or reckless
driving. Lying on this form will be punishable by 10 years in prison
and/or a $10,000 fine.
- See more at:
http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/blog/item/we-need-to-regulate-cars-the-way-we-regulate-guns#sthash.2msuptFF.dpuf

I
keep hearing people say they want to regulate guns the way we regulate
cars. They don't really mean that, of course. What they mean is they
want to make it acceptable to find more ways to intrude on the right to
keep and bear arms.
I propose instead, we regulate cars the way we regulate guns. Let's start:
To buy or operate a standard car, one will have to be 18 years old.
Under that age, adult supervision will be mandatory. This means the
adult must be in the vehicle with the underage driver.
To buy a sports car, you will have to be 21. A "Sports car" will be
defined as any combination of any two of the following: 2 doors instead
of 4, spoked rims not requiring hubcaps, aerodynamic effects such as
spoilers or air dams, a wheelbase under 100 inches, a manual
transmission, a curb weight under 3000 lbs, fiberglass or other
non-metal construction, or painted logos.
For every purchase, you will have to fill out a questionnaire
confirming you're a US citizen, do not use drugs or abuse alcohol, have
never had a conviction for alcohol related incidents or reckless
driving. Lying on this form will be punishable by 10 years in prison
and/or a $10,000 fine.
- See more at:
http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/blog/item/we-need-to-regulate-cars-the-way-we-regulate-guns#sthash.2msuptFF.dpuf

While examples of the old media using their power to push for ever more restrictive gun laws are so common as to be the norm, this segment by CBS is a particularly clear example:

Newtown families have high hopes for N.J. gun ammo bill

Exactly one family was said to be present lobbying for the bill; the father cites a theory with little to no evidence to support its premise. An emotional father who lost a son is pushing for more gun restrictions that are virtually irrelevant to mass shootings; the mass shootings are a tiny segment of homicides that occur in the country; and the actual effects of the law are ignored and downplayed.

As "Joe the Plumber" observed, speaking of the knife, car, and gun attack in California:

"... your dead kids don’t trump my Constitutional rights.”

This is as clear as rationality and logic can make it. Emotional appeals do not trump the rule of law. That leads to lynchings are and mob rule. But at the inquisitr.com, emotion clearly trumps the rule of law, as they castigate Joe the Plumber for pointing out the irrelevance of emotional pleas. Emotions may be necessary to determine goals, such as protecting children, that we wish to achieve. They are absolutely terrible at determining the means to reach those goals.

New Jersey already has some of the most restrictive and illogical firearms laws in the nation. A man who won a hunting rifle in a police lottery was convicted of possessing it a few years later, after New Jersey legislators made it into an "assault" rifle by creating an absurd definition. It was a clear case of the ignorant crafting legislation based on strong negative emotions. That definition is included in this new legislation.

Political pundits have speculated that New Jersey Democrat legislators have seen an opportunity to put a potential Republican presidential candidate in a bind. Pass a very bad piece of legislation that only harms legal gun owners and has no real effect on reducing crime or mass killings. Promote it via the old media as the propaganda arm of the party.

This may well be the case. When the media is on your side, such tactics can work.

It is also likely that many politicians in New Jersey are simply incapable of setting aside emotion in order to decide what to do on this issue. Numerous irrational acts by legislators on the issue of firearms restrictions argue that they are acting from ignorance as much as malice.

"For the Children" is a form of political pedophilia, meant to blind people's ordinary care and caution in order to pass legislation that would never have a chance under sane and careful examination.

For more than four hours, SWAT team members fired grenades through walls and windows and blasted in the doors with explosives.

De La Torre came home from work while police were still there.

“(An
officer) just kinda shook his head and said, ‘I am so sorry, ma’am.
It’s your house and it’s…ruined; we destroyed it,’” she said. “Police
officers and detectives that were there told me to file a claim with the
city of Renton.

Clearly, MS De La Torre was not guilty of any crime. The destruction of her home is, in effect a tax imposed on her without any due process. If such destruction is necessary to enforce the rule of law, then the cost should be spread among the taxpayers that hire those who did the damage, as they all benefit from the rule of law and are the ones who could have mitigated the amount of damage done.

LAS CRUCES >>
Police say last week's shooting at Apodaca Park was an act of
self-defense, and two men, including a man shot in the neck, have been
arrested for their alleged role in the afternoon incident.

(snip)

At Apodaca Park last
week, Melero pulled up next to the man's car and Lopez blocked him in.
The man told police that Melero exited his truck and tried to force his
way into the man's car, saying he was going to kill the man and his son,
the complaint states.

So the man pulled out his .40-caliber Smith & Wesson handgun and told his son to get down.

The latest mass-casualty shooting spree —
this one in Santa Barbara, Calif. — has touched off the usual debate
about how to put a stop to these hideous spasms of murder. These random
massacres have become, as I wrote in a previous column, an American psychosis.

Some,
including the anguished father of one of the victims, point to guns and
the NRA as the villains. Defenders of guns respond with the usual
arguments — which I find persuasive. That much having been said, I wish
people who defend the Second Amendment wouldn’t talk about their guns
with such lascivious pleasure. Guns are necessary to self-defense. The
right to own them is enshrined in the Constitution. Enough said. Let’s
not worship them. Gun worship — by the Hollywood Left, which uses it to
sell tickets, and by the conservative Right, which fetishizes guns — are
both part of our national problem.

The officer said he was loading his bike on the back of a vehicle when
man came from behind and pointed a gun at his head. The officer said he
swung and hit the man in the face, then pulled a weapon out of his
pocket and fired at the men, who fled south in a parking lot of a nearby
apartment complex in the Riverdale area. He also turned and fired back
at the officer, according to the report.

There have been numerous settlements for illegal arrests of people openly carrying firearms.

A man who was arrested for carrying a holstered handgun into a movie
theater a week after the Aurora shootings in 2012 received a $25,000
settlement check from the city of Thornton last week, according to Denver’s 7News.

Jim Mapes had a concealed-carry permit and said he’d carried his gun
to the same theater several times in the past. Another theater-goer
called 911, saying a man with a weapon had just entered a movie theater.
He was originally charged with brandishing the weapon, which Mapes
denied.

(snip)

The city settled for $25,000, but admitted no wrongdoing. Wareham
said the check itself was evidence that Mapes’ arrest was unwarranted.

“They got to apologize to him in the form of a nice, healthy check,” he told 7News.

David hits another out of the park with this article. It is worth reading it all.

In an analysis published Thursday, Guns & Ammo magazine has ranked the states
for 2014 to determine which are best and worst for gun owners. The
magazine based its assessment on five categories: Right to Carry; Modern
Sporting Rifles; NFA (National Firearms Act items including machine
guns, suppressors, etc.); Castle Doctrine; and a “catch-all”
Miscellaneous category that includes state protections, citizen
attitudes and the like.

What is immediately apparent is the division between people and their
political preferences as exemplified by the “best” and worst”-ranked
states. To illustrate, this column will look at the top and bottom 10,
starting with the worst.

Coming in at 51 is Washington D.C. The mayor is a Democrat,
as are 11 of the 13 City Council positions (with two “Independents”) as
are all federal representatives. Presidential Electoral College votes
went to the Obama/Biden ticket.

The next nine states listed, with “worst” listed first, are New York,
New Jersey, Massachusetts, Hawaii, California, Connecticut, Maryland,
Rhode Island and Delaware, Democrat strongholds all. And while there
are notable (and rare) exceptions, such as Republican Chris Christie in New Jersey, the governor, who occasionally gets things right, more often does not, and in very destructive ways against the right to keep and bear arms.

On the other side of the equation, the “best” state is Arizona,
slightly edging out Alaska. The “top 10,” going down the list, include
Georgia, Utah, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Wyoming, Montana, Kansas and Florida.
Again, there are some splits, as in Kentucky, Montana and Florida, but
in all those states, the influence of Democrats has been tempered by
Republicans. See “Political party strength in U.S. states” for a breakdown.

Much of Memorial day weekend was spent in cleaning up my parents estate, now owned by my brother. After hauling three pickup loads of priceless antiques, or barely valuable used property, depending on your viewpoint, to the Salvation Army; my able partner, driver, and recently married nephew deserved a break.

We stopped by Micky D's for some needed refreshment. As befits a Retired Uncle, I paid. He is at least a fourth generation member of the American gun culture. We know one greatgrandfather was in the U.S. Navy during the Civil War, or War Between the States, whichever you prefer.

The Glock was openly carried in a retention holster, in a full Memorial day crowd in McDonalds. It was Hayward, Wisconsin with the population swelled to three times that of permanent residents. No one said anything. No one looked cross eyed that I could tell. To show the normalization that has occurred, I did not think
anything of it until we had finished eating and were on the way out.
That is when the camera came out.

A few years ago police checked me out while I open carried in the town, but as I was pacing back and forth in front of a retail establishment, talking to no one visible, on a bluetooth earpiece, it was quite understandable. They did their job and determined that I was not a threat, and left. It did not hurt that if we looked past three degrees of separation, we were probably related in some way or another.

Hodgson also said that the primary duty of a
sheriff is to uphold the Constitution and he, along with many sheriffs
from across the country, are becoming increasingly upset with
encroachments on the Constitution, especially those upon the Second
Amendment.

He stated that he is a supporter of
the Second Amendment and believes that American citizens have the right
to bear arms — unequivocally.

(snip)

"The focus should be to find out where the bad guys are getting their
guns illegally," he said. "We should be investing our money into going
after them and leave the good guys alone."

So let’s breakdown homicides by the victim’s gender. Moms Demand
Action’s claim doesn’t make much sense as one shouldn’t compare the
number of homicides since that doesn’t account for differences in
population size. There are a lot of small population countries. It
would make much more sense to compare homicide rates. This figure from the UNODC shows that the US has one of the lower female homicide rates in the world.

Tuesday, May 27, 2014

Here is a list of businesses claimed to have been targeted with operation "Choke Point". The administration characterization of "high risk" seems to translate into "Those I do not like." These "High Risk" merchant categories are listed on an fdic.gov site:

Ammunition Sales

Cable Box De-scramblers

Coin Dealers

Credit Card Schemes

Credit Repair Services

Dating Services

Debt Consolidation Scams

Drug Paraphernalia

Escort Services

Firearms Sales

Fireworks Sales

Get Rich Products

Government Grants

Home-Based Charities

Life-Time Guarantees

Life-Time Memberships

Lottery Sales

Mailing Lists/Personal Info

Money Transfer Networks

On-line Gambling

PayDay Loans

Pharmaceutical Sales

Ponzi Schemes

Pornography

Pyramid-Type Sales

Racist Materials

Surveillance Equipment

Telemarketing

Tobacco Sales

Travel Clubs

Some of these companies/activities will be offensive to some. Others will be astonished that they are included on a list of activities to be targeted for extra-legal punishment through pressure from government regulators. None of this is aimed at people who are breaking laws. In fact, that is the whole point of operation "choke point"; to go after people who are operating legally, but doing something that higher ups in the DOJ do not like or approve of.

Some of them, taken together, are positively chilling: ammunition sales, firearms, surveillance equipment, coin dealers? It is almost a laundry list of "progressive" bigotry, that much of the country finds acceptable. The list above is from 2011, and appears to focus mostly on Internet sales.

It is a classic case of the authoritarian use of power by the government to crack down on individuals that they do not like, even though no crime was committed.

According to The Hill,
the DOJ encourages banks and third party payment processors to drop
these high-risk clients by “flooding payments companies that provide
processing service to those industries with subpoenas, civil
investigative demands, and other burdensome and costly legal demands.”
The American Banker reveals, in their timeline of Operation Choke Point,
that the subpoena flood started shortly after Operation Choke Point’s
inception in March 2013. The subpoenas went to banks and payment
processors large and small: Everything from the $343 million-endowed
National Bank of California to the $220 billion-endowed PNC Financial
Services Group. By fall of 2013, the Justice Department had pressured
some banks into settling with the government. The DOJ used these
settlements as a template to further strongarm other banks into
compliance. The DOJ is targeting 30 high-risk industries, as labeled by
the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) in 2011, in a report
titled “Managing Risks in Third-Party Payment Processor Relationships.”

The article goes on to tout BitCoins, a digital currency, as a way to work around these regulatory intimidation tactics.

Breitbart News previously reported that economist John Lott will establish the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC), an initiative to produce studies focused on the relationship between firearms and crime. Lott is largely funding CPRC with donations from individuals who support his mission. Just one month after launching CPRC's campaign on the crowdfunding site Indiegogo, Lott has already exceeded $30,000 in donations.

The financial success of Lott's campaign suggests that Americans are
hungry for accurate information regarding guns and crime,
amid a mainstream media that often vilifies firearms and those who own
them.

The CPRC is currently themost successful campaign in
the education section on Indiegogo and has more than double the number
of funders than the other trending education campaigns. Lott's project
is additionally the third trending campaign in the education section.

Firefighters have known for years that burning small arms ammunition produces a very low level of danger to firemen. This is from the SAAMI paper, "Facts About Sporting Ammunition Fires":

Ammunition fired in the open, not enclosed in a gun's chamber, discharges with such inefficiency that the projectile will not even penetrate an ordinary fiberboard shipping container panel at very close range. When not strongly and tightly confined, smokeless propellant powders burn relatively slowly and do not explode as we know they do when fired in a gun. Pressure within a cartridge case must build up to several thousand pounds per square inch to cause the cartridge to discharge as it does in a gun. Unless it is tightly confined, as in a gun chamber, no ammunition shell case will withstand the growing pressure of gases generated by burning propellant powder without bursting before the bullet or shot is expelled with violence or velocity.

Casings propelled by this type of action would likely have to impact exposed skin or eyes to have any effect. Actual injuries from such fires are so rare as to make the news, even if the injury is so minor as to normally go unreported. Thus, this news from sandiego.com:

A firefighter was struck by a casing fragment and sustained a minor
injury, Rodriguez said. He was treated at the scene and released back to
duty.

Treated at the scene and released. This sounds like a band aid to me. Firefighters, as government employees are carefully monitored; injuries are required to be reported because of the potential for workman's compensation and potential pension effects. To be treated at the scene and released means that the injury was exceedingly minor.

Update: As a wise friend reminded me, there are not enough details to let us
know what really happened. I have never heard of unconfined ammunition
exerting enough force to "fragment" cases; the "fragment" is not
identified, and it is only an on scene report.
One Internet forum source reported that he had experience of a fragment that barely punctured the skin at a range of less than five feet from a .22 rimfire case. He concluded that any other cases were too sturdy to fragment.

Monday, May 26, 2014

The Isla Vista shootings

In their usual brain-dead way, liberals are blaming the shootings on an inanimate piece of metal -- a gun. That the shooting was actually done by a person seems to have escaped them. For anyone who is able to think, however, what made the person concerned do what he did is surely the crucial question. And the plain fact that he had long been psychologically unwell -- to the point of having undergone therapy several times -- is an obvious thing to point to.

But his ability to convince the police that he was a 'perfectly polite, kind and wonderful human' indicates that he was not too bad. Given different circumstances he might have made something of himself. So what were the circumstances that led him down the wrong road? I think that is fairly clear. Modern Left-based ideas of child-rearing and education teach that everyone is a star and everyone is entitled to win and have all they want without effort. And it is certainly clear that Elliot Rodger did have a strong sense of entitlement. He thought that success should come to him rather than feeling that its lack was his problem and that should go out and work for it.

If he had had an old-fashioned Christian upbringing, however, he would have learnt that man is a fallen and imperfect creature who has to work for his blessings and must be thankful for what he has.

In short, Leftist nonsense pushed a fragile man over the edge; A Christian upbringing might have saved him and his victims.

I reproduce below two things: An account of the terrible loss that this badly guided man inflicted and a commentary on the claims that more gun control is needed. That three of the victims were knifed to death may undermine the anti-gunners a bit, though. Do we need knife control as well? It may be noted that in Britain, where only blacks and farmers have guns, fatal stabbings are common -- but even the British have not attempted knife control, though it is talked about.

Father of Veronika Weiss, shooting victim, speaks

When Bob and Colleen Weiss learnt that their daughter may have been a victim in the Isla Vista shooting rampage, they immediately got in their car late on Friday night and drove from their home in Thousand Oaks, California to Santa Barbara.

But once they arrived in the Santa Barbara County coastal community around midnight, authorities were unable confirm whether 19-year-old Veronika Weiss was among those killed. It was hours before they heard back from sheriff’s officials.

"It was 4 o'clock in the morning and Veronika's not a 4 o’clock in the morning type of girl," Bob Weiss said in an interview on Sunday. "I'm not a fool. I knew what happened."

After a student riot broke out in Isla Vista in March, Veronika called her parents and told them, "I'm safe in my room. Don't worry about me."

This time she didn't call. They used her "Find my iPhone" app and her phone was in the middle of one of the crime scenes, her dad said.

Bob Weiss said his daughter was wise and mature beyond her years. He said he would go to her for advice sometimes if he was having a problem with her brothers, Cooper, 17, and Jackson, 15, or even a minor argument with his wife.

Weiss said his daughter was always a tomboy. She played four sports in high school, which is a rarity. She participated in cross country, baseball, swimming and water polo and she earned straight A's. Her strength was maths.

Starting at age six she loved playing softball, he said. Later she played baseball. He said she was the only girl out of 500 players in the Westlake baseball league.

"She was tough," he said. "She was a big strong girl and she was tough."

On the water polo team at Westlake High School, which she graduated from, the coach always put her as the defence player against the top scorer on the opposing team.

He said she always organised events for her circle of friends. He described her friends as nerds and serious students. They would study every Friday night and it was not unusual for her to spend Sundays working on her advanced maths work. "She loved it," he said.

He said many of her friends went on to other prestigious schools such as Princeton and she wanted to go to the University of Washington. But the out-of-state tuition and financial situation made that prohibitive.

"She would always wear her purple and gold University of Washington sweatshirt," he said.

"She wanted to be a financial wizard, and use her high aptitude with complicated math."

He said her mother and grandmother belonged to the tri-Delta sorority so it makes sense that she would join it too at UCSB. She didn't know many people at the Santa Barbara campus but the sorority gave her a built-in circle of friends, he said.

He described her as being gregarious. She liked to laugh a lot, he said. She was loud and "she made everybody else laugh".

"She was happy all the time," he added.

She graduated high school with a high, 4.3 grade point average.

He said she would sometimes visit him at his office in Newbury Park. She would just come over spontaneously and bring him lunch and they would eat together. "Who does that? How many high school kids are thoughtful like that and want to spend time with their parents?"

Veronika and her parents had just gone snowboarding together two weeks ago. That was their last trip together. They had planned to spend Sunday together. Bob Weiss and his wife had planned to drive up to Santa Barbara to take her to lunch and go shopping.

He said he doesn't know what happened on Friday night but he does know that Veronika would have put herself in harm's way to help her friends or even the young man who shot her. "She always reacted to a situation quickly. She always wanted to help. She was very courageous."

By now, you have probably heard about the recent mass-shooting in Isla Vista, California.

First of all, I want to express my condolences to the victims and their families. This kind of senseless violence is absolutely deplorable and could shock everyone's conscience, regardless of political affiliation.

Unfortunately, the gun control advocates are at it again, arguing that if Federal and State gun control laws were just a little stricter, this tragedy could have been avoided. This couldn't be farther from the truth!

It didn't take long to get a statement from the shooter's family. Alan Shifman, the lawyer representing the family, announced that they were "staunchly against guns," support gun-control laws, and would devote the rest of their lives to stopping tragedies like this from happening again… In this press release, the family blamed the NRA and gun culture in America for allowing their son to arm himself.

Really? They are blaming the NRA because their liberal son bought three guns over a period of months and chose to indiscriminately shoot people? Is it just me, or does it seem like the family is blaming everyone except their own son?

Residents of California know how ridiculous it is to blame the state’s gun control laws. California's gun laws are the strictest in the nation and still, for a deranged and plotting teen who flew under the radar, they did nothing to stop him from arming himself. This shooting is a textbook example of how no amount of gun control laws can stop an individual hell-bent on causing harm to people.

Elliot Rodger was also able to buy all three of his handguns legally, which in California is no easy task. A prospective gun owner has to jump through a number of hoops before they are allowed to take ownership of a gun, let alone three.

If Elliot Rodger bought his weapons from a gun store, which is likely, he would have had to submit to a thorough background check that ran his criminal history, mental health history, and even the applicant's fingerprints. This costs $25. Then, the gun buyer has to wait exactly ten days before he or she is allowed to actually take ownership of the firearm (providing they passed the background check). This operates under the assumption that waiting 10 days to take ownership of a pistol will stop “crimes of passion.”

California also has a law prohibiting the purchase of more than one handgun a month, meaning that Elliot Rodger's would have to have built his collection of handguns over a three month period.

California prohibits citizens from carrying a loaded gun on their person or in their car unless they demonstrate an impossible to meet "good cause." Elliot Rodger broke the law when he took loaded pistols into his car.

California and Isla Vista also have laws against indiscriminately discharging firearms into crowds of people. Elliot Rodger, like other violent criminals, disregarded this law.

At every step of the way, gun control laws failed to stop Elliot Rodger from committing these murders. Even if they were successful at stopping Rodger from arming himself, the fact the first few victims were actually stabbed to death shows that this type of hatred will always find a tool to commit the crime.

Gun control advocate are chomping at the bit to introduce a piece of legislation that would have “prevented” the shooting. But the entire premise of putting words on a piece of paper to deter deranged killers is ludicrous. Elliot Rodger broke a plethora of gun laws. Suggesting that one more would have made a difference is ridiculous.

The only reason you aren't seeing gun control advocates like Dianne Feinstein calling for more gun control measures is because this happened on a weekend. You can rest assured that come Monday morning, these Liberals will be out in force trying to take away YOUR Second Amendment rights because of the actions of a liberal, disturbed young man in Commiefornia.

Guns & Ammo magazine yesterday posted an
on-line rating of where the states stand on gun rights, and
surprisingly Washington, where well-financed anti-gunners complain that
the laws need to be tightened, is in the bottom third, while Oregon and
Idaho are ranked No. 29 and 30, respectively.

The best state for gun owners is Arizona, where it is legal to carry
openly or concealed without a permit, where all carry permits are
honored, and where it is legal to own full-auto firearms and there are
no magazine limits. Washington, meanwhile, is rated 39 out of 51,
including all the states and the District of Columbia.

A recent Facebook discussion between presumptive Ohio police officers lends a chilling twist to the recent controversial Texas Chipotle open carry
story, one that recalls a similar police attitude from a few years
back, and one that endangers law enforcement as well as citizens, Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine was told today in a letter both mailed by this correspondent and communicated to him online.

“I am writing to express concern that Ohio law enforcement is not
receiving proper training regarding the duty of sworn officers to
respect and protect the right of the people to openly bear arms in
public,” DeWine was told. “Some have exhibited ignorance on occasion, as
well as contemptuous attitudes that endanger the public and may create
blowback. I am also offering a solution to help ensure the law is
observed and that dangerous situations and unwarranted responses will
not be initiated by the authorities.”

Those attitudes included laughing about double-tapping
the open carriers, a term gun owners recognize as the placing of two
shots into a target in quick succession. That recalls a similar comment
made years back by a California police detective laughing about shooting open carriers and then getting two weeks off, and further laughing because the legal climate in California denies concealed carry permits to so many.

Subscribe To Gun Watch

Background

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” -- Thomas Jefferson

Syndicated columnist Charley Reese (1937-2013): "Gun control by definition affects only honest people. When a politician tells you he wants to forbid you from owning a firearm or force you to get a license, he is telling you he doesn’t trust you. That’s an insult. ... Gun control is not about guns or crime. It is about an elite that fears and despises the common people."

The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles -- Jeff Cooper (1920-2006)

Note for non-American readers: Crime reports from America which describe an offender just as a "teen" or "teenager" almost invariably mean a BLACK teenager.

We are advised to NOT judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics.

Two lines below of a famous hymn that would be incomprehensible to Leftists today ("honor"? "right"? "freedom?" Freedom to agree with them is the only freedom they believe in)

First to fight for right and freedom,
And to keep our honor clean

It is of course the hymn of the USMC -- still today the relentless warriors that they always were.

The intellectual Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius (AD 121-180) said: "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."

How much do you know about Trayvon Martin? Did you recognize him in the picture above? If not you may need to know more about him. It's all here (Backups here and here)

“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.” -- Robert A. Heinlein

After all the serious stuff here, maybe we need a funny picture of a cantankerous cat